Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Bijil Varkey Jose vs The State Of Kerala on 30 January, 2012 cites

State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992

12. Ms. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader was equally vehement in refuting the arguments relying on Mohd. Ashif & others v. State of Bihar & others: (2010) 5 SCC 475, Jayakutty A & others v. State of Kerala & others: 2016(4) KLT 138 and the Full bench Judgment dated 02.12.2016 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Pawan Kumar & another v. Union of India & others: 2017 (4) KLT SN 47 distinguishing the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and argued that there was no post of Liaison Officer in the present case; whereas in Piara Singh's case (supra) relied on by the W.P(C) No.20225 of 2017-C, Contempt Cases(C) Nos.1158 of 2017-S and 1063 of 2017-S 13 petitioners, there were sanctioned posts. It is also her case that the decision not to extend the contract period of appointment of the petitioners, was taken by the State Level Committee, taking note of the fact that there were no Liaison Officers in 5 out of the 14 districts; according to her the last extension of the petitioners, as per Ext.P17 order, was based on a general decision extending the tenure of appointment for two years, without looking into the performance of the petitioners or the requirement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1473 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Md. Ashif & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 May, 2010

12. Ms. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader was equally vehement in refuting the arguments relying on Mohd. Ashif & others v. State of Bihar & others: (2010) 5 SCC 475, Jayakutty A & others v. State of Kerala & others: 2016(4) KLT 138 and the Full bench Judgment dated 02.12.2016 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Pawan Kumar & another v. Union of India & others: 2017 (4) KLT SN 47 distinguishing the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and argued that there was no post of Liaison Officer in the present case; whereas in Piara Singh's case (supra) relied on by the W.P(C) No.20225 of 2017-C, Contempt Cases(C) Nos.1158 of 2017-S and 1063 of 2017-S 13 petitioners, there were sanctioned posts. It is also her case that the decision not to extend the contract period of appointment of the petitioners, was taken by the State Level Committee, taking note of the fact that there were no Liaison Officers in 5 out of the 14 districts; according to her the last extension of the petitioners, as per Ext.P17 order, was based on a general decision extending the tenure of appointment for two years, without looking into the performance of the petitioners or the requirement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 42 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Pawan Kumar And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 26 November, 2009

12. Ms. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader was equally vehement in refuting the arguments relying on Mohd. Ashif & others v. State of Bihar & others: (2010) 5 SCC 475, Jayakutty A & others v. State of Kerala & others: 2016(4) KLT 138 and the Full bench Judgment dated 02.12.2016 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Pawan Kumar & another v. Union of India & others: 2017 (4) KLT SN 47 distinguishing the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and argued that there was no post of Liaison Officer in the present case; whereas in Piara Singh's case (supra) relied on by the W.P(C) No.20225 of 2017-C, Contempt Cases(C) Nos.1158 of 2017-S and 1063 of 2017-S 13 petitioners, there were sanctioned posts. It is also her case that the decision not to extend the contract period of appointment of the petitioners, was taken by the State Level Committee, taking note of the fact that there were no Liaison Officers in 5 out of the 14 districts; according to her the last extension of the petitioners, as per Ext.P17 order, was based on a general decision extending the tenure of appointment for two years, without looking into the performance of the petitioners or the requirement.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - K S Ahluwalia - Full Document
1